"Your data was askin' for it"

Today, a belated gift for the surveillance state: the dismissal of ACLU v Clapper by a federal district judge, declaring the NSA’s bulk communications records collection to be “legal”. The grounds cited for this ruling speak to the depths of the problem with any expectation of meaningful “reform” or “restraint” from the government, showing that the only Check is on us pawns:

-First off, judge Will Pauley did as any propagandist would do and waved the bloody flag of 9/11 several times, putting the lie to the concept of the impartial judiciary we are taught to assume. He then made a connection between that clearly successful attack & attacks later thwarted that has long been proven false:

“This blunt tool only works because it collects everything,” Pauley wrote. “Technology allowed al Qaeda to operate decentralized and plot international terrorist attacks remotely. The bulk telephony metadata collection program represents the government’s counter-punch.”

To date, there has been no aborted attack the stopping of which could be traced to the bulk collection program. None. It’s either been bystanders noticing or the feds creating the plot themselves to entrap people they later arrest, doing everything short of handing the hapless wannabes actual explosives. Oh, and there was also that attack in Boston that actually occurred…

Portrayed as all that stand between Us and Them, pervasive surveillance seeks to be accepted as the unquestionable price of everyday life. By throwing up the specter of 9/11, Pauley casts resistance to such as not merely a disagreement, but as face value insanity, suicidal even. This despite the question being not “Is It Useful”, but whether or not it violates the Constitution.

-About the broad scope of information the program takes in, Pauley’s reply is “yeah, but…”:

While acknowledging that the program “vacuums up information about virtually every telephone call to, from, or within the United States,” he said its constitutionality “is ultimately a question of reasonableness.”

Pauley added that he found no evidence that the government had used bulk telephony metadata for any reason other than to investigate and disrupt terrorist attacks.

There are reports of multiple advocacy groups being stymied by this program, the feeding of NSA data to domestic law enforcement (primarily to aid the War on Drugs…), and even NSA employees spying on ex-lovers for the hell of it. Will Pauley must not get out much.

-Lastly, he approvingly cites Smith v. Maryland from 1979 (read: before the internet or smartphones even existed), which said that since phone companies had your phone records there was no expectation of privacy. Even back then there should’ve been some semblance of thought at the implication there: for the most part, these companies are how people have come to communicate across distances. Telephone companies, tech companies, & ISPs serve as gatekeepers to much of the world, and require some data simply to accept the contract & let your connections onboard. If this is combined with the idea that information once given for purpose of communication itself is freely available to the government for any reason they can make up, then you do not own yourself if you are on the internet or the phone for any reason. The people of the digital age are effectively being slut-shamed by the government* — “you shouldn’t have been so open with your data!”, when the choice was for it to be shared only for the purpose of connection, not for anything else. Taken to its logical conclusion, what was thought of as a sphere of liberty becomes a cage, as any expression of dissent, use of anonymity or combination of both is grounds for your placement under the microscope of the government.

Don’t like it?  I guess we all retreat to the trees & caves then, so much for modernity…

No. Either this wicked idea of facilitation of access by our current range of providers being equivalent to total submission to state surveillance must be strangled to its much deserved death, or we must seek to build another way. A way that keeps our data away from the agents of the state, that does not allow treatment of all as suspects, that does not equate access with submission.

* – by the way, among the tepid “reforms” being considered is making formal the holding of metadata by a third party. While the holding of data by a 3rd party is being claimed as allowing the access of the data by anybody. Don’t be fooled.


About b-psycho

Left-libertarian blogger & occasional musician.
This entry was posted in fevered barking, law. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to "Your data was askin' for it"

  1. Elma Mercer says:

    To ensure that no person or group would amass too much power, the founders established a government in which the powers to create, implement, and adjudicate laws were separated. Each branch of government is balanced by powers in the other two coequal branches: The President can veto the laws of the Congress; the Congress confirms or rejects the President’s appointments and can remove the President from office in exceptional circumstances; and the justices of the Supreme Court, who can overturn unconstitutional laws, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

  2. B Psycho says:

    Considering that is a total copy/paste, I nearly bot-spammed it. Instead, having encountered people I thought were bots who turned out be actual persons, I’ll respond:

    Even if that government school claptrap portrayal of The Founders as genuinely concerned about concentration of power rather than seeking it themselves were remotely true, that the U.S. government so routinely robs us for the benefit of concentrated wealth, beats and kidnaps us for what we freely choose to do, treats us all as perpetual suspects, responds to dissent with violence, & commits murder with impunity both here and abroad surely marks that system as a failure…right?

    Either the Constitution was powerless to stop any of what we have seen and is thus worthless, or it sanctioned it & is thus worthless. Your teacher lied to you.

  3. dmantis says:

    Are you 12?

    With all due respect, that’s what this comment made me assume.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s